Portfolio Optimization Techniques for Cryptocurrencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the shortcomings of the existing literature regarding cryptocurrency portfolio construction. First, we address the effectiveness of time-series models that capture stylized features. We perform a comparison study on various methods for estimating distributions for asset returns, including normal, historical, and GARCH models within a CVaR setting. The goal of this comparison is to determine the financial benefits of constructing portfolios based on estimated distributions that consider stylized features of crypto return series. Next, we create and compare various prediction models for cryptocurrencies and integrate them with mean-variance optimization to base performance on portfolio management metrics, such as Sharpe ratio and level of diversification, rather than statistical metrics like accuracy and R<sup>2</sup> on which the literature solely focuses. We determine it is unclear which optimization approach (CVaR or Robust MVO) leads to better crypto portfolios, and so, to address this, we compare optimization procedures on out-of-sample data through a thorough cross-validation of hyperparameters for each technique. We then compare the resulting risk-optimal portfolios from each technique. The results show that a CVaR approach with a GARCH simulation and a decision tree prediction model with robust mean-variance optimization yield portfolios of similar risk. We also show that using statistical metrics to evaluate models may not always yield the best financial performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".